Comments on: Why new media is a generational term

By: Tim Holmes

Tim Holmes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:13:38 +0000

“But to the 18-year-olds in my class, new media is not new. To them, it is just media.

“The term “new media” reflects the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. To the immigrants, this is a new land, full of strange and confusing wonders.

To the natives, it is simply the world they know.”

I agree with you in principle but the fact is, many of our students find what we teach them about “new media” is new to them too. They may text and Facebook and MySpace and even Tweet (though that is not so likely) but they rarely see how to link these things into broader journalistic practice. We still have to overcome some strong initial resistance to blogging, never mind anything else. And not all young people are comfortable using technology, either.

The other thing is that “New Media” is always *new*. If it wasn’t, Martin Stabe would still be covering the same stuff he was covering in 2006 and Vin Crosbie would not be able to refer to Facebook, Everyblock and Twitter.

It only becomes meaningless when it fossilises.

By: Vin Crosbie

Vin Crosbie — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:29:57 +0000

No. Some people teach multimedia Mass Media and call that New Media. Some teach Mass Media shoveled online or into new devices and call that New Media. All of this ‘convergence’ stuff is simply new Mass Media.

However, when you teach things that cannot possibly be done in Mass Media — whether in Mass Media’s traditional vehicles, shoveled online, or with a veneer of multimedia added –then you’re teaching the New Media. Things like mass individualization of content(Facebook, etc.), semantic and Web 3 apps (Everyblock.com, etc.), many-to-many network reporting (Twitter, etc.), and other entirely new forms of communication media.

There is a New Media, but most journalism and communications school are merely teaching Mass Media shoveled onlline or multimedia Mass Media.
http://tinyurl.com/clouf6

By: Links for today | Links para hoje « O Lago | The Lake

Links for today | Links para hoje « O Lago | The Lake — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:59:26 +0000

[...] Why new media is a generational term, Alfred Hermida [...]

By: Reportr.net: ‘Why new media is a generational term’ | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:37:09 +0000

[...] Full post at this link… [...]

By: Martin Stabe

Martin Stabe — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:29:57 +0000

When I started a job covering this space in January 2006, we had a debate about what my job title should be.

Despite this very point coming up, we stuck with the very unsatisfactory “new media” (and sometimes drew flak for it).

The problem was that all the other possible modifiers for “media” – “digital”, “online”, “electronic”, “interactive”, “future”, “innovation” were all either too broad or too narrow to correctly describe a space referring to “digital communication made possible through the use of computer technology”.

“New media” is a very silly term, especially in 2009. The problem in explaining this succinctly may be that Internet as a medium doesn’t come loaded with implications about the form of the content or the working practices of the producers in the same way that “print”, “broadcast” or “telephone” do. “New media” shares characteristics of all “old” media depending on the the way it is used.

By: Lauren Rabaino

Lauren Rabaino — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:24:50 +0000

My university’s journalism department plans to create a “new media” concentration (in addition to print, broadcast and PR) and that phrase bugs me immensely as a 19-year-old. I agree entirely that it’s a generational term. I suggested the department call it “multimedia,” but even that’s not good enough. I like Martin’s suggestion of “future” media. I’d never heard that one.

By: Martin Belam

Martin Belam — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:32:37 +0000

Perhaps people could follow the example of the BBC, who renamed their “New Media” department as “Future Media & Technology”. After all, when you are no longer new, where else is there to go but the future?

By: Doug Lacombe

Doug Lacombe — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:47:56 +0000

The term “new media” has always struck me as backwards, akin to “horseless carriage”, meaningful, as you suggest, only to older generations.

It’s why I avoided the title “New Media Manager” back in 95 when I first published TheStarPhoenix.com to the web and opted instead for “Electronic Media Manager”.

Semantics? Maybe, but I always felt we had to look ahead and not in the rear view to drive to the new publishing destination.

Cheers,

Doug Lacombe, MBA